President Obama, Vice President Biden, New York Mayor Bloomberg, and all the other liberal Democrats want to ban guns from private ownership in order to reduce gun violence in the United States. But will it?

In 1996 newly elected Prime Minister John Howard of Australia pushed for stricter gun control. That year the Australian Parliament passed the National Firearms Agreement which banned the private ownership of all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump action shotguns. The new law also established more restrictions in the licensing of other firearms.

According to the National Firearms Agreement private citizens were forced to turn over the banned weapons in a government buyback system. Beginning on October 1, 1966 through September 30, 1997, the Australian government spent $500 million in purchasing and destroying more than 631,000 banned guns. Howard and other politicians promised the citizens of Australia that they would be safer now that these horrible weapons had been taken off the streets.

However, that was not the case! Since Australia banned semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pump action shotguns the gun crime rates have skyrocketed throughout the country.

Murders committed with guns increased by 19%.

Home invasions increased by 21%.

Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%.

Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%.

Many former gun owners blame the government and their gun control laws for the increases in crimes. They feel helpless in their own homes, unable to protect themselves. In fact, home invasions were so rare prior to the gun ban that the nation did not even have a legal definition for what a home invasion was.

Seeing the direct results of what the ban on guns did in Australia, they are now warning us not to follow in their footsteps.

With gun control being the number one item on Obama’s agenda, I feel that it is vitally important to share this video with everyone you know, especially your Senator and Representative in Washington and your state capital. Show them that banning guns will only increase crime not reduce it and demand that they take action to prevent the Obama administration from turning us into another Australia.

The Ultimate TRUTH About The Failed Gun Ban Control Experience (Documentary)

You probably believe that Martin Bryant, acting alone, carried out the Port Arthur massacre on Sunday 28th April 1996. If so, can you reconcile the following facts with the official story?

On Sunday 28th April 1996 it is alleged Martin Bryant shot and killed 35 people and injured 20 others at Port Arthur in the State of Tasmania, Australia using military type semi-automatic rifles. It was the biggest massacre alleged to have been done by a “lone gunman”.

Bryant, an intellectually impaired 29 year old, pleaded not guilty for months to the murders until pressure was brought to bear by his lawyer and he eventually pleaded guilty to the crimes.

There was no confession by Bryant – in fact at the time of his first police interrogation he strongly and repeatedly denied the accusation.

Immediately following this in what appeared at the time was a knee-jerk reaction under threats from the Federal Government through Prime Minister John Howard all Australian States banned the private possession and use of semi-automatic rifles and implemented the wishlist that gun control groups had been pushing for 10 years.

Since then details have surfaced arising from people who were there on the day and grieved relatives of victims being unsatisfied about the investigation and prosecution of Bryant.

There are too many inconsistencies, irregularities and unanswered questions about the incident that raises questions whether Bryant was the murderer and has been framed and whether Tasmanian Police and Governemt Officials were involved ( and whether the whole purpose of this incident was to create an excuse for national gun laws banning semi-automatic firearms and requiring gun registration on the pretext a “lone gunman” did it all himself ).

This website attempts to detail what those things are in the public interest. This website was made after it became known that the Shooters News website was removed offline.

It contains both info from the original site as well as updated details.

————————————————————————————

The Port Arthur Massacre. – The Basic FACTS

1. Martin Bryant was 58 kilometres away when Mr David Martin was shot at Seascape Cottage. At 10.40 am.

THE CONVENIENT DISTRACTION

2. Also just before the shootings the only two policemen in the region were called away on a wild goose chase. They were sent to the Coal Mine at Salt Water River, to investigate a heroin drug stash which turned out to be soap powder.

This was too far for them to get to the Broad Arrow Cafe in time to be of any use. Had a policeman remained at Dunalley he would have closed the swing bridge to prevent the killer(s) from escaping from the peninsula. Did Bryant, IQ 66, organise this decoy?

3. Big Mortuary Truck.

Before the massacre, a specially-built 22 person capacity mortuary truck was built. It attracted some derision at the time, but its effective use at Port Arthur was unquestioned. After the massacre it was advertised, unsuccessfully, for sale via the internet, then converted for another purpose. Without the foresight of Port Arthur, why build it? When it had proven its worth, why get rid of it? Another coincidence?

4. Martin Bryant has never been properly identified as the gunman. A young woman who ate her lunch near the gunman just before 1.30 said he had a freckled face. Graham Collyer, the wounded ex-soldier, who had the best opportunity to observe the killer, said he had a pock-marked or acned face.

Neither description fits Bryant who has a beautifully smooth complexion. Graham Collyer says that it was not Bryant who shot him in the neck.

5. Illegal Photo. On 30th April the Hobart Mercury printed a week old photo of Martin Bryant on the front page.

This was illegal because at that stage some of the witnesses had not yet been asked to identify the killer, and the photo would have become fixed in the minds of the witnesses.

When one witness was asked to describe the clothing worn by the gunman, she described the clothing on the photo instead of what the gunman had worn. The Mercury newspaper was not prosecuted for breaking the law.

She and other medics then cared for the injured and the dead without any police protection for six and a half hours. Who ordered the armed police to stop at Tarana, where they had a barbecue? The police who arrived by boats were a stone’s throw away from the main crime scene, the cafe, and they too failed to come in to see what was going on. Was this meant to increase the trauma of the survivors?

7. Three more shots were fired at Port Arthur at 6.30pm while Bryant was at Seascape. Who fired those shots?

8. Same Question – Different Answer. At a recent Forensics Seminar in Queensland where the Tasmanian Police forensic gun inspector, Gerard Dutton, gave a lecture, the first question came from Mr Ian McNiven.

He asked if there was any empirical evidence to link Martin Bryant to the Broad Arrow Cafe. Sargent Dutton immediately closed the 15 minute question time and would not reply. When McNiven managed to say “I have here Graham Collyer’s police statement…”, Sgt Dutton threatened him with arrest and called for security agents to escort McNiven out of the building.

When Dutton was asked the same question in America by a Doctor at an American seminar, he replied truthfully – “There is no empirical evidence to link Bryant to the cafe”.

9. Yet a police video tape exists which proves that the police had an excellent opportunity to get DNA samples and finger prints of the gunman. The video briefly shows the blue sports bag on a cafe table.

The gunman had carried his 3 rifles in this bag and left it right next to his drinking glass, his Solo soft drink can, knife, fork, plate, video cameras, etc. Why did the police fail to take DNA samples and finger prints?

10. According to the official story, Bryant first killed David and Sally Martin at Seascape Cottage in the morning, then went on to Port Arthur. Yet two policemen have reported seeing a naked woman with black hair, screaming and running from one building to another at Seascape well into the afternoon. If Sally Martin was dead, who was this woman?

11. Proof of other gunmen in Seascape Cottage. While Bryant was calmly talking to police by telephone in the cottage during the ‘siege’ and the conversation was recorded, someone else fired an SKK rifle 20 times. In the transcript the gunfire is recorded as ‘coughs’ but an electronic analysis of one of the ‘coughs’ shows that it was an SKK shot.

12. Two More Very Handy Seminars. On the Sunday morning, some 25 specialist doctors (Royal Australian College of Surgeons) from all over Australia had attended a training course in Hobart, and their last lecture was on Terrorist Attack and Gunshot Wounds. They stayed on to take care of the wounded victims.

13. Also, more than 700 reporters from 17 nations came to a seminar in Hobart. They were asked to arrive during the week-end as the seminar was due to begin early on Monday morning. How handy to have 700 scribblers churning out their anti-gun and disarmament propaganda to the whole world!

14. “There will never be uniform Gun Laws in Australia until we see a massacre somewhere in Tasmania”, said Barry Unsworth, NSW Premier, December, 1987 at a conference in Hobart. Prophecy or Planning?

15. “If we don’t get it right this time (gun laws) next time there is a massacre, and there will be, then they’ll take all our guns off us”, said the deputy prime minister, Tim Fischer (Above) in May 1996. Who is the “THEY” who would order the removal of our guns? Did Fischer let slip that gun confiscation has been ordered by someone other than our own leaders?

16. No Respect for the Law. Our laws demand that a Coronial Inquiry must take place (a) when foreign nationals are killed (b) when anyone dies in a fire John Howard acted illegally when he ordered the Coronial Inquiry to be abandoned.

17. It is evident that the massacre was planned to happen on the ferry which sailed to the Isle of the Dead every day. The victims were to be eighty elderly American tourists who had come in two coaches. But the plan went awry because the sailing time of the ferry had changed from 1.30 to 2.00 pm.

All the preparations were made for a 1.30 massacre, so the killer began his work at the Broad Arrow Cafe at 1.30, instead of on the ferry at 2.00.

Here is some evidence suggesting that the plan was to kill the Americans at 1.30 on the way to the Isle of the Dead where tourists are shown the ancient convict cemetery –

(a) The gunman had tried to buy a ticket for the 1.30 sailing.
(b) When the gunman began pulling out his weapons in the Cafe, one Professional witness [Anthony Nightingale] stood up shouting “No, no, not here!!” If it was not meant to be “here”, then it was meant to be somewhere else. Nightingale was shot for he had obviously given the game away.

(c) Had the gunman waited for the 2.00 sailing, the decoyed policemen may have returned with their firearms and two-way radios and upset things.

(d) Also, with the later start the trauma surgeons at the Royal Hobart Hospital may have dispersed and not been available to treated the wounded victims.

(e) In a video made by the Tasmania Police we are told that some policemen came by sea to Port Arthur in patrol boats. These police did not go ashore.

They did not come to the crime scenes at the Cafe or elsewhere to help the victims or to guard the First Aid workers who needed protection. Obviously they expected a massacre at sea, when they saw nothing they returned to Hobart.

(f) On his way to the Historic Site the gunman stopped to help some girls who had problems with their car. He told them of his intention to kill some WASPS [Wealthy Anglo-Saxon Protestants] the Isle of the Dead. (Below)

(g) On the very day Martin Bryant was being sentenced in Hobart, President Clinton was addressing the Australian Parliament in Canberra. Was he there to make sure poor Martin copped the blame for the massacre and that nothing went wrong with the gun confiscation scheme, which of course was the reason for the Port Arthur Massacre?

18. On the Sunday morning, two hours before the murders, ten of the senior managers of Port Arthur were taken to safety many miles away up the east coast,for a two day seminar with a vague agenda and no visiting speakers. Was the timing of this trip a mere coincidence?

Port Arthur: A Shortcut to Australia’s Civlian Disarment?

“We are going to see a mass shooting in Tasmania…unless we get national gun control laws.”
– Roland Brown, Chairman of the Coalition for Gun Control, uttered on “A Current Affair with Ray Martin”, March 1996

At 1.30 p.m. on Sunday 28 April 1996, an unknown professional combat shooter opened fire in the Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur in Tasmania, Australia. In less than a minute 20 people lay dead, 19 of them killed with single high-velocity shots to the head fired from the right hip of the fast-moving shooter.

In less than thirty minutes at six separate crime scenes, 35 people were shot dead, another 22 wounded, and two cars stopped with a total of only 64 bullets. A moving Daihatsu 4WD driven by Linda White was crippled by a “Beirut Triple”, normally reserved for dead-blocking Islamic terrorists driving primed car bombs around the Lebanon.

One sighting shot, a second to disable the driver, and a third to stop the engine before the primed car bomb can hit its target and explode. Very few people know of this technique, and only a handful of experts can master it with only three bullets.

This awesome display of combat marksmanship was blamed on an intellectually impaired young man called Martin Bryant, who had no shooting or military experience at all. As the book “Deadly Deception at Port Arthur” proves in absolute scientific terms, Bryant killed no-one at Port Arthur.
Joe Vialls. See footnote at the end of this article.

On Sunday afternoon, April 28, 1996 “lone nut assassin” Martin Bryant opened fire on tourists at the Broad Arrow Cafe in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Before Bryant left the Broad Arrow ninety seconds later, 20 people lay dead and 13 others lay injured. Nineteen of the twenty deaths were the result of a gunshot wound to the head. By the time Bryant was finally apprehended, the body count was 35 dead, and 18 seriously wounded.

Twelve days after Bryant’s shooting spree, massive new restrictions were imposed on the civilian possession and use of firearms – restrictions specifically designed to reduce the number of lawfully owned guns in the hands of Australians. It was a scenario all too familiar to American gun-owners. A high-profile shooting occurs and new laws are demanded – laws designed to render civilian firearm possession all the more difficult.

With Port Arthur, however, many Australians believe that the firearm-prohibitionists weren’t willing to leave anything to chance. Fuelling the fires of suspicion, major discrepancies in the official accounts of what transpired at Port Arthur surfaced in the years that followed and charges of cover-up and conspiracy were levelled against the Australian government. Even if the exact details may never be known with certainty, some light may be shed on the answers by examining the question of whether Martin Bryant was capable of acting alone.

Twenty eight year old Martin Bryant had an IQ of 66 and was considered incompetent by the state at the time of the shootings. In February 1984, a psychiatric assessment was undertaken for the purpose of determining Bryant’s eligibility for a Dept. of Social Security Invalid pension.

It was granted because of Bryant’s mental deficiencies, that he been unable to hold a job and was incapable of managing his own affairs. In addition to his pension, he had been left a legacy of over one million dollars.

If Bryant had co-conspirators who made themselves scarce after his actions, then might not their motive be the facilitation of a political agenda? Sufficient evidence now exists in the public record to strongly suggest that Bryant could not have acted alone, either in planning or in executing the massacre. Charges of a conspiracy designed to stampede Australians into surrendering their guns becomes all the more credible.

A DIVERSIONARY PHONE CALL?

Bryant departed at 9:47 a.m. for Port Arthur after spending four days with his girlfriend. He made several stops along the way, purchasing a cigarette lighter, a bottle of tomato sauce, and approximately 20 litres of gasoline. He had lunch upon his arrival at the Broad Arrow Cafe.

About an hour before the shooting commenced, an anonymous phone call was made to the police. The unidentified caller reported a large quantity of heroin stashed at a coal mine situated near Saltwater River at the extreme west end of the Tasman Peninsula. The only two policemen on the Tasman Peninsula were sent to investigate this report. One was dispatched from Nubeena, the closest police station to the Port Arthur site, 11 kilometers away.

The other officer was dispatched from Dunalley, a small town to the north with the “swing bridge” capable of isolating the Tasman peninsula from the rest of Tasmania. On their arrival at Saltwater River, the police found only glass jars filled with soap powder.

Within minutes of the officers’ phone call reporting their position at the coal mines, the shootings commenced at the Broad Arrow Cafe. Was that anonymous phone call just mere coincidence? Was it simple oversight that, in all of the government documentation, there is only a single reference to this phone call, and of the subsequent dispatching of the only available police officers to far away Saltwater River?

Without any suggestion that the phone call might have been used as a diversionary tactic, the reference appears in the official report of Commissioner of Police Richard McCreadie. He noted only that “the local police were at the Saltwater River area…”

There was neither any further interest, nor any follow-up investigation of the origins of that anonymous phone call.

Wendy Scurr was the first one to call in the report of the shootings to police and is a senior instructor at St. John Ambulance. In her spare time, she worked as a volunteer with the Tasmanian Ambulance Service in the Port Arthur area. About the anonymous phone call, Scurr said, “I became aware that the only 2 local police were dispatched to Saltwater River. I was chatting to the Nubeena policeman and he told me where he was when the shooting began. His name is Paul Hyland.

The other policeman was stationed at Dunalley. He would back up Hyland as they were told heroin (soap powder) was found at Saltwater River.”

“This meant that the only 2 local police were at least 25 minutes away from Port Arthur. Very convenient. I don’t know when, where, or who rang and alerted the police to this so-called heroin haul…”

“I know it should have been on tape. But I went to Hobart about a week after the shooting to a meeting of the ambulance service. A comment was made to me that the tape recordings of the day’s events had been accidentally wiped. The chap who told me was a senior ambulance officer. I travelled with him to the meeting, and it was during this journey that I was given this information.”

In addition, according to free-lance journalist Joe Vialls, closing the swing bridge at Dunalley “would also prevent anyone from leaving the Peninsula, including those involved in executing the massacre at Port Arthur.” But because the Dunalley-based officer was called away, “the bridge remained open to traffic after the massacre, and several people are known to have left Port Arthur and escaped across that swing bridge…”

If Martin Bryant was too incompetent to plan and execute this complicated scenario, then there was at least one other person who helped Bryant by diverting the police from the Cafe, and providing Bryant more time. Who was that person? Did he use the swing bridge at Dunalley to make good his escape?

BRYANT’S EXIT TO SEASCAPE

What is known about the events following the carnage at the Broad Arrow Cafe is that Bryant, upon leaving the Cafe, switched from the .223 Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle used inside the Cafe to his other rifle, a .308 Fabrique Nationale FAL semi-automatic, and fired several shots.

He then drove 100 yards to the toll booth at the Port Arthur historic site, shot four people inside a gold BMW, and exchanged vehicles. He drove another 200 yards to a service station, blocked off a Toyota Corolla driven by Glen Pears, and took Pears hostage at gunpoint, forcing him into the trunk of the BMW. As Pears’ female companion Zoe Hall attempted to get into the driver’s seat and make her escape, Bryant shot her.

Bryant drove the BMW to the Seascape Cottage, a holiday accommodation with the back of the property facing a body of water called Long Bay. Bryant set fire to the BMW and took Pears into the main building.

A state of siege ensued upon the arrival of the police. Police superintendents Barry Bennett and Bob Fielding discussed the Seascape siege in the March 1997 issue of the Association of South Australia Police Journal. They noted: “There was some suggestion that there may be two suspects. It appeared at one stage that two gunmen or some people or hostages at Seascape were exchanging gunfire with the gunmen as there appeared to be shots coming from two separate buildings…” (emphasis ours).

According to autopsy reports, two of the hostages – the elderly couple who owned and operated Seascape, David and Sally Martin – were killed early on Sunday, before Bryant had even driven into the Port Arthur area. According to the official Court transcripts, the burned corpse of the third hostage, Glen Pears, was recovered with his hands secured behind his body with a pair of handcuffs.

It is highly unlikely that Martin Bryant, alone, could have been shooting from several buildings at once, while spending the time he did on the phone with the hostage negotiators. With all three of Bryant’s hostages accounted for, and no one else found in the buildings at Seascape besides Bryant, who was the other gunman?

By early the next morning, smoke was seen billowing from the building, forcing Bryant out, his back on fire and into police custody.

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT

The events following Bryant’s capture should be familiar to most American gun-owners. The Australian media, in lockstep, condemned Bryant as guilty without any evidence. Because semi-automatic firearms were used, the firearm-prohibitionists and their allies in media and the government pulled out all the stops to ban these firearms.

Bryant’s lawyers accepted the premise that he was guilty of all charges. At his court appearance on September 30, 1996, Bryant pleaded “not guilty” to each of the 72 charges levelled against him. That decision was untenable for David Gunson, one of Bryant’s legal representatives, who was replaced by John Avery. Although Bryant never made a detailed confession concerning the Broad Arrow murders, Avery eventually persuaded Bryant to plead guilty. That guilty plea was entered in court on November 7, 1996.

On November 19, the first day of the court proceedings involving Bryant’s sentencing, Avery stated to the court: “Your Honour nothing that I can say on behalf of my client can mitigate the outrageous nature of his conduct.” At a subsequent speech delivered at the University of Tasmania law school, Avery stated: “I felt intensely that I had to do right by the community as well.”

Here are just a few of the astonishing irregularities and discrepancies that, at the very least, should have been pursued by Bryant’s lawyers:

· Eyewitnesses were not interviewed when it became known that their stories would conflict with the government account.

· A credible time-line that connects Bryant to the killing of the Martins at Seascape, and still allows him to arrive early enough at the Broad Arrow to buy and eat lunch before the carnage, was never established. If he didn’t kill the Martins, then who did?

· No forensic evidence of Bryant’s physical presence at the Broad Arrow was ever established. Because Bryant’s face was plastered throughout Australia, all eyewitness identification was contaminated. Why didn’t Avery pursue the discrepancies in the descriptions of clothing Bryant was reported to have worn at different stages during the carnage?

· In direct violation of the Australian constitution, Prime Minister John Howard suggested that a Coronial Inquest was not required, and called for the immediate demolition of the Broad Arrow Cafe. Although the survivors clamoured for more information, Howard used the pretext that more information would be too painful for them to bear.

Bryant’s financial resources would have permitted his lawyers to hire as many private investigators and psychiatrists as necessary to defend him, yet they failed to do so. On November 22, Bryant was sentenced to life in prison.

Are all these discrepancies and unanswered questions just the result of coincidence and official ineptitude? Or were the lives of 35 innocent victims sacrificed for the sake of politics? In the course of researching the Port Arthur shootings, the more we learned, the more questions we found without answers. One thing seems irrefutable: the Australian government was – and still is – afraid of the truth.

The Deadly Deception at Port Arthur is available from: J. Vialls, 45 Merlin Drive, Carine, Western Australia 6020 A$ 14.95 including postage within Australia.
First published in Guns & Ammo Magazine, May, 2001

Note: Joe Vallis, the writer of the introductory passage and one of the most prominent voices questioning the official account of events at Port Arthur, was recently accused of being “Anti-Semitic”.

The charge came from no less than the Anti-Defamation League and it is rapidly becoming a familiar refrain. In other words anyone who questions or challenges the official spin on events is accused of being “Anti-Semitic”; amongst those recently accused are historian David Irving, David Icke and Professor Norman Finkelstien, who is Jewish himself and was thus labelled . . . “a self hating Jew.” Ed.

Aust. Gun Laws and Tasmanian Massacre – Google Groups

THE TRUTH ON THE PORT ARTHUR MASSACRE

Here you will find an abundance of evidence that supports the fact that Martin Bryant, convicted of the Port Arthur massacre is in fact innocent. He is yet another victim of mind control and the perpetuators of the massacre are in fact
the international intelligence agencies.

The tragedy of Port Arthur is a very emotive subject that is difficult to discuss rationally and without pain, however I believe that the victims would have wanted the real facts to be brought to public notice.

The Secret Global Reset Agreement

See for yourself..click on image below..

This was to be 1-11 First 9-11 Then London 7-11 And Fukushima 3-11

This article is about the planned EMP nuking of the USA that was stopped… 1-11

The Illuminati Murder of Michael Jackson

John F. Kennedy’s Last Speech on Secret Societies

Yahoo Now Over 2,000,000 Truth Soldiers are armed with truth munitions... make sure you arm others NOW..

2,106,492 (Blog Stats) Truth Soldiers that are now going out to recruit and arm more Truth Soldiers in the info war for freedom and to save this planet from the grips of the INSANE Corporate Bankster Illuminatti Criminals.

(Full Audiobook)

Click on image

We have come together a massive project to present to you guys and you may be blown away how much crap we are facing in the near future and it may surprise you.

WATCH NOW “IN A NUTSHELL” if this doesn’t scare you into reality, I don’t know what will !!!

https://thenibirusunset.wordpress.com

Fukushima Mutant Beast HI-RES 3D slide show

THE NEW WORLD ORDER – A 6000 Year History – HD FEATURE

A detailed and complete 6000 year history of the New World Order and the Illuminati.
Includes the history of the Secret Societies, Ancient Beliefs and the Matrix of Control that has shaped human history for thousands of years.
Also includes for the first time, a documented history of the true birth of the Illuminati and finally, its affect on the world today.